The Road to Peace Starts in Jerusalem: the "Condominium" Solution

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Road to Peace Starts in Jerusalem: the Catholic University Law Review Volume 45 Issue 3 Spring 1996 Article 11 1996 The Road to Peace Starts in Jerusalem: The "Condominium" Solution John V. Whitbeck Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation John V. Whitbeck, The Road to Peace Starts in Jerusalem: The "Condominium" Solution, 45 Cath. U. L. Rev. 781 (1996). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol45/iss3/11 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ROAD TO PEACE STARTS IN JERUSALEM: THE "CONDOMINIUM" SOLUTION John V. Whitbeck* There will never be a durable peace in the Middle East without a settle- ment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict acceptable both to most Israelis and to most Palestinians. That is a fact. There also will never be a lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without a solution to the sta- tus of Jerusalem acceptable both to most Israelis and to most Palestini- ans. That also is a fact, one which is increasingly difficult (and dangerous) for anyone to ignore. It is still widely assumed that no such solution exists. This has led Israel to insist that the status of Jerusalem should not even be discussed until all the lesser problems of Israeli-Palestinian relations have been resolved, at which point, perhaps, some previously unimaginable solution may mirac- ulously appear. While, according to the Declaration of Principles,1 per- manent status negotiations are to commence not later than May 4, 1996,2 and Jerusalem is explicitly one of the "remaining issues" to be covered during those negotiations, the Declaration of Principles is ambiguous as to whether "all" of the "remaining issues" are to be discussed at once.3 * John V. Whitbeck is an international lawyer based in Paris, and a graduate of Harvard Law School. His "Two States, One Holy Land" framework for peace was the subject of a three-day conference of 24 Israelis and Palestinians held in Cairo in November 1993. His solution for Jerusalem was one of the plans presented at a two-day conference on the Theme, "Jerusalem - Best Second Choices" held in Jerusalem in June 1994. Ear- lier versions of this paper were published in 1994 by AI-Quds (Jerusalem), Middle East International (London), The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Middle East In- sight (Washington), Middle East Policy (Washington), and in 1995 by Palestine-IsraelJour- nal (Jerusalem). 1. Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, Sept. 13, 1993, Isr.-PLO, reprinted in 32 I.L.M. 1525 (entered into force Oct. 13, 1993) [hereinafter Declaration of Principles]. The Declaration of Principles was signed by "[tihe Government of the State of Israel and the P.L.O. team (in the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation to the Middle East Peace Conference)" on September 13, 1993 in Washington, D.C. Id. at 1527. 2. See id. at 1529, art. V, § 2. The Interim Agreement stipulates that "negotiations on the permanent status ... will start ... not later than May 4, 1996." Preamble, Israeli- Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (signed by the Gov- ernment of the State of Israel and the PLO on Sept. 28, 1995 in Washington, D.C.). 3. Declaration of Principles, supra note 1, at 1529, art. V, § 3. Section 3 states that "these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settle- Catholic University Law Review [Vol. 45:781 Absent a major change of heart, Israel is likely to refuse to discuss Jerusa- lem (at least in any serious way) until the very end of the projected five- year "interim period" in 1999. The signing of the Declaration of Principles has not slowed Israel's ef- forts to change the "facts on the ground" in and around Jerusalem in its favor. Particularly in light of the Israeli government's efforts to hobble existing Palestinian institutions in the city, its declared intention to build new housing units for some 32,500 Israelis at Har Homa, between the Jerusalem Arab neighborhood of Umm-Taba and the neighboring West Bank Arab city of Beit Sahour, and the constant talk of expanding the municipal boundaries to incorporate Ma'aleh Adumim, a huge West Bank settlement several kilometers east of Jerusalem, and other nearby settlements, Palestinians understandably fear that Israel's true intention is to create a fait accompli by 1999, permitting Israel to stonewall on Jeru- salem in the expectation (or hope) that the Palestinians would by then have no choice but to bear the unbearable. In these circumstances, doubts, distrust, and even despair remain wide- spread. Many people on both sides have no faith in the current "peace process" and no desire to become involved in it and to help it to succeed because they perceive at the end of the road a great immovable boulder named Jerusalem which they believe condemns any "peace process" to ultimate and inevitable failure. Nothing is more likely to instill construc-_ tive confidence in the eventual success of the "peace process" and to ac- celerate the essential moral, spiritual and psychological transformation toward a cooperative, rather than a confrontational, view of the future of the Middle East than a prompt recognition that a solution to the status of Jerusalem does exist. Fortunately, there is one solution which has a real chance of being acceptable both to most Israelis and to most Palestinians. THE JOINT SOVEREIGNTY SOLUTION When Israelis and Palestinians speak about Jerusalem, they are not simply establishing negotiating positions. Jerusalem commands too tight a grip on hearts and minds. Their repeated and virtually unanimous posi- tions must be taken seriously. If one accepts, as one must, that no Israeli government could ever accept a redivision of Jerusalem, and if one ac- cepts, as one must, that no Palestinian leadership could ever accept a per- manent status solution which gave the Palestinian State (and, through it, the Arab and Islamic worlds) no share of sovereignty in Jerusalem, then only one solution is conceivable - joint sovereignty over an undivided ments, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest." Id. 1996] "Condominium" Solution city. In the context of a two-state solution, Jerusalem could form an undi- vided part of both states, constitute the capital of both states and be ad- ministered by an umbrella municipal council and local district councils. In the proper terminology of international law, the city would be a "con- dominium" of Israel and Palestine. Joint undivided sovereignty, while rare, is not without precedent. Chandigarh is the joint undivided capital of two Indian states. For more than seventy years, the entire Pacific nation of Vanuatu (formerly the New Hebrides Condominium) was under the joint undivided sovereignty of Britain and France. For more than 700 years, the Principality of An- dorra has been under the joint undivided sovereignty of French and Span- ish individuals (currently the President of France and the Bishop of Seo de Urgel) while its administration is entrusted to an elected General Council. As a joint capital, Jerusalem could have Israeli government offices principally in its western sector, Palestinian government offices princi- pally in its eastern sector and municipal offices in both. A system of dis- tricts or French-style arrondissements could bring municipal administration closer to the different communities in the City (including the ultra-orthodox Jewish community). To the extent that either state might wish to control persons or goods entering it from the other state, this regulation could occur at the points of exit from, rather than entry to, Jerusalem. In a context of peace, particularly one coupled with economic union, the need for such controls would be minimal. In a sense, Jerusalem can be viewed as a cake that could be sliced either vertically or horizontally. Either way, the Palestinians would get their share of the cake, but, while most Israelis could never voluntarily swallow a vertical slice, they might just be able to swallow a horizontal slice. Indeed, by doing so, Israel would finally achieve international rec- ognition of Jerusalem as its capital. Jerusalem is both a municipality on the ground and a symbol in hearts and minds. Undivided but shared in this way, Jerusalem could be a sym- bol of reconciliation and hope for Jews, Muslims, Christians, and the world as a whole. Furthermore, since a city needs no army but only po- lice, Jerusalem could also be fully demilitarized, finally becoming the "City of Peace" which all three religions have long proclaimed it to be. Among peace-oriented Israelis and Palestinians, there is a broad con- sensus that, in any permanent status solution, Jerusalem should remain physically undivided. However, there is no consensus on how to solve the problem of sovereignty. That issue remains almost too hot to handle. In- deed, it is a bit like death: Everyone knows that it is at the end of the Catholic University Law Review [Vol. 45:781 road, but virtually no one wants to talk about it because virtually no one can see any solution or happy ending. The issue of sovereignty over Jerusalem is so emotional, and the con- sensus within each community behind its own uncompromising position is (or is at least proclaimed and perceived to be) so nearly universal, that there is no incentive for those within the communities directly engaged to propose original or unorthodox ideas on the subject. Even today, any Israeli or Palestinian who publicly sought to promote a compromise solu- tion to the issue of sovereignty over Jerusalem which he honestly believed could be acceptable to the other side would risk being castigated as a traitor or a heretic by the vocal majority of his compatriots or coreligionists.
Recommended publications
  • The-Legal-Status-Of-East-Jerusalem.Pdf
    December 2013 Written by: Adv. Yotam Ben-Hillel Cover photo: Bab al-Asbat (The Lion’s Gate) and the Old City of Jerusalem. (Photo by: JC Tordai, 2010) This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position or the official opinion of the European Union. The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) is an independent, international humanitarian non- governmental organisation that provides assistance, protection and durable solutions to refugees and internally displaced persons worldwide. The author wishes to thank Adv. Emily Schaeffer for her insightful comments during the preparation of this study. 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5 2. Background ............................................................................................................................ 6 3. Israeli Legislation Following the 1967 Occupation ............................................................ 8 3.1 Applying the Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration to East Jerusalem .................... 8 3.2 The Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel ................................................................... 10 4. The Status
    [Show full text]
  • Moving the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem: Challenges and Opportunities
    MOVING THE AMERICAN EMBASSY IN ISRAEL TO JERUSALEM: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION NOVEMBER 8, 2017 Serial No. 115–44 Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov http://oversight.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 28–071 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:17 Jan 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 H:\28071.TXT APRIL KING-6430 with DISTILLER COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking Darrell E. Issa, California Minority Member Jim Jordan, Ohio Carolyn B. Maloney, New York Mark Sanford, South Carolina Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia Justin Amash, Michigan Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Paul A. Gosar, Arizona Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Jim Cooper, Tennessee Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Blake Farenthold, Texas Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Thomas Massie, Kentucky Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey Mark Meadows, North Carolina Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands Ron DeSantis, Florida Val Butler Demings, Florida Dennis A. Ross, Florida Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Mark Walker, North Carolina Jamie Raskin, Maryland Rod Blum, Iowa Peter Welch, Vermont Jody B.
    [Show full text]
  • Promoting Widespread Awareness of Religious Rights Through Print and Online Media in Near Eastern, South Asian and East Asian C
    Promoting Widespread Awareness of Religious Rights through Print and Online Media in Near Eastern, South Asian and East Asian Countries – Appendix A: Articles and Reprint Information Below is a comprehensive list of articles produced under this grant, their authors and dates of their distribution, as well as links to the full articles online and the news outlets that distributed them. 1. “The power of face-to-face encounters between Israelis and Palestinians” (July 5, 2011) by Yonatan Gur. Reprints: 18 In English In French Today's Zaman (Turkey) Pretty Zoelly‟s Blog (blog) (France) Inter Religious Encounter Information Consultancy Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies (US) In Indonesian The Global Human, (blog) (US) Mulyanis (blog) (Indonesia) Facebook (Adam Waddell) (Israel) Peace Please (US) In Urdu The) Jewish Reporter (US) Al Qamar (Islamabad) (Pakistan) The Daily News Egypt (Egypt) Masress.com (Egypt) Bali Times (Indonesia) The Positive Universe (US) Fuse.tv (US) Facebook (T-Cells (Transformative Cells)) (US) Facebook (United Religions Initiative) (US) Occupation Magazine 2. “In Lebanon, dialogue as a solution” (June 28, 2011) by Hani Fahs. Reprints: 17 In English In Arabic Canadian Lebanese Human Rights Federation Al Wasat News (Bahrain) Religie(Canada) 24 (Netherlands) Hitteen News (Jordan) Taif News (Saudi Arabia) Gulf Daily News (Bahrain) Middle East Online (UK) Schema-root.org (US) In French Kentucky Country Day School (KCD) (US) Al Balad (Lebanon) Peace Please (US) Facebook (Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue) In Indonesian Khaleej Times (UAE) Mulyanis (blog) (Indonesia) Al Arabiya (UAE) Rima News.com (Indonesia) Facebook (Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue) In Urdu Angola | Burundi | Côte d'Ivoire | Democratic Republic of Congo | Guinea | Indonesia | Jerusalem | Kenya Kosovo | Lebanon | Liberia | Macedonia | Morocco | Nepal | Nigeria | Pakistan | Rwanda | Sierra Leone Sudan | Timor-Leste | Ukraine | USA | Yemen | Zimbabwe Al Qamar (Islamabad) (Pakistan) 3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 45 Issue 3 Spring 1996 Article 15 1996 The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 Geoffrey R. Watson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Geoffrey R. Watson, The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, 45 Cath. U. L. Rev. 837 (1996). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol45/iss3/15 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE JERUSALEM EMBASSY ACT OF 1995 Geoffrey R. Watson * Congress has voted to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. On October 24, 1995-the day of the Conference on Jeru- salem here at the Columbus School of Law of The Catholic University of America-Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995.1 The President took no action on the Act, allowing it to enter into force on November 8, 1995.2 The Act states that a United States Embassy to Israel should be established in Jerusalem by May 31, 1999, and it provides for a fifty percent cut in the State Department's building budget if the Embassy is not opened by that time.' The Act permits the President to waive the budget cut for successive six-month periods if the President determines it is necessary to protect the "national security interests of the United States."' In these pages and elsewhere, several contributors to this symposium have addressed the policy questions raised by the Act.5 I will focus on the Act's interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of Israeli Municipal Policy in East Jerusalem Ardi Imseis
    American University International Law Review Volume 15 | Issue 5 Article 2 2000 Facts on the Ground: An Examination of Israeli Municipal Policy in East Jerusalem Ardi Imseis Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Imseis, Ardi. "Facts on the Ground: An Examination of Israeli Municipal Policy in East Jerusalem." American University International Law Review 15, no. 5 (2000): 1039-1069. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FACTS ON THE GROUND: AN EXAMINATION OF ISRAELI MUNICIPAL POLICY IN EAST JERUSALEM ARDI IMSEIS* INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1040 I. BACKGROUND ........................................... 1043 A. ISRAELI LAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND EAST JERUSALEM SINCE 1967 ................................. 1043 B. ISRAELI MUNICIPAL POLICY IN EAST JERUSALEM ......... 1047 II. FACTS ON THE GROUND: ISRAELI MUNICIPAL ACTIVITY IN EAST JERUSALEM ........................ 1049 A. EXPROPRIATION OF PALESTINIAN LAND .................. 1050 B. THE IMPOSITION OF JEWISH SETTLEMENTS ............... 1052 C. ZONING PALESTINIAN LANDS AS "GREEN AREAS".....
    [Show full text]
  • To Be Young in Palestine Pénélope Larzillière
    To Be Young in Palestine Pénélope Larzillière To cite this version: Pénélope Larzillière. To Be Young in Palestine: translation by William Snow of the book Etre jeune en Palestine (Paris, Balland, 2004, 205p.). Balland, 200p, 2004. halshs-00464037 HAL Id: halshs-00464037 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00464037 Submitted on 15 Mar 2010 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. To Be Young in Palestine Pénélope Larzillière Translation by William Snow of the book: Larzillière, Pénélope (2004), Etre jeune en Palestine, Paris, Balland, 205p. 3 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 6 PART ONE: PALESTINIAN YOUTH ............................................................................................................. 14 CHAPTER 1 ........................................................................................................................................................ 15 THE NATIONAL
    [Show full text]
  • Social and Economic Situation of Palestinian Women and Girls (July 2016 – June 2018) Distr
    Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia Social and Economic Situation of Palestinian Women and Girls (July 2016 – June 2018) Distr. LIMITED E/ESCWA/ECW/2019/TP.2 9 January 2019 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) Social and Economic Situation of Palestinian Women and Girls (July 2016 – June 2018) United Nations Beirut, 2019 19-00032 Executive Summary This report reviews the situation of Palestinian women and girls during the period July 2016-June 2018, focusing on political, social, economic and human rights developments. Building upon previously published research of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) on the status of Palestinian women and girls and drawing upon the most recent data available, this report highlights the complex situation of women and girls, revealing both progress and setbacks in the context of the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza. The first chapter of the report presents a background of the volatile political setting and its impact on the well-being and rights of women and girls. It lays out the devastating effects of the 11-year Israeli blockade of Gaza on the nearly two million Palestinians who are denied free access to the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory and to the outside world. It also highlights the gendered impacts of occupation-related policies, such as increasing settlement activity, threats of forced eviction and house demolitions, particularly in East Jerusalem and Area C of the West Bank. The chapter also presents major developments in the security and political situation in the occupied Palestinian territory during the reporting period including the United States administration’s recognition – in violation of international law – of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the Great March of Return along Israel’s border fence by Palestinian refugees in Gaza demanding their right to return to their land and homes and a lifting of the Israeli blockade.
    [Show full text]
  • East Jerusalem September 16, 2020
    Precedent for Annexation – East Jerusalem September 16, 2020 Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem serves as the historical precedent and template for any further extension of Israeli sovereignty in the West Bank. Following the Declaration of Independence in 1948, Israel extended its sovereignty beyond the borders designated by the U.N. partition resolution and declared Jerusalem its capital. The move was not recognized by any state. After the West Bank occupation in June 1967, Israel extended sovereignty over East Jerusalem through a process that continues to this day, by which Israeli laws and regulations are applied progressively to land Israel occupied militarily. This process contravened international law, and the international community objected, including the United States.1 United Nations Security Council and General Assembly resolutions called on Israel to rescind the annexation.2 Israeli officials countered that they had only implemented a series of administrative measures to restore order, integrating the delivery of service to residents of a unified Jerusalem as the East Jerusalem Municipality was ordered to cease operations.3 Since 1967, Israeli policy has been to enforce its sovereignty by making sure there is a Jewish majority in the city through a mix of de facto and de jure measures, which allows it to continue to maintain it has not annexed the territory. The new municipal boundaries of Jerusalem left out densely populated Palestinian areas that threatened a Jewish majority. Land belonging to villages near Jerusalem was annexed, but the homes of their Palestinian owners were excluded. East Jerusalem Palestinians were registered as “permanent residents,” which restricts their rights and prevents them from voting in Israeli national elections or holding an Israeli passport.
    [Show full text]
  • O Occupied East Jerusalem
    Occupied East Jerusalem “De-Palestinization” and Forcible Transfer of Palestinians A situation of systematic breaches of State obligations under the ICCPR JOINT NGO REPORT to the UN Human Rights Committee For the Committee’s Review of the Fourth Periodic Report of ISRAEL Submitted by: The Civic Coalition for Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem (CCPRJ) Contact: Zakaria Odeh, executive director Email: [email protected] Tel: +972 2 2343929 www.civiccoalition-jerusalem.org The Coalition for Jerusalem (CFJ) Contact: Aminah Abdelhaq, coordinator Email: [email protected] Tel: +972 2 6562272 url: www.coalitionforjerusalem.org The Society of St. Yves, Catholic Center for Human Rights (St. Yves) Contact: Dalia Qumsieh, head of advocacy Email: [email protected] Tel: +972 2 6264662 url: www.saintyves.org 1 Content Introduction Paragraph RECOMMENDATIONS A. Constitutional and legal framework within which the Covenant is implemented by Israel in occupied East Jerusalem (Art. 1, 2) Question 4: Application of the Covenant in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) 4 – 11 Question 5: Equality and non-discrimination in Israeli law, courts; other measures 12 – 22 Recommended Questions to the State party (Art. 1 and 2) B. State of Emergency (Art. 4); derogations from international standards Questions 12, 19: Progress in review of Israel’s state of emergency; derogations 23 – 25 from international standards (complementary issues) Recommended Questions to State party (Article 4) C. Freedom of movement and residence (Art. 12, 2; also 14, 17, 23, 24, 26) Questions 20, 21: Complementary information on Palestinians in East Jerusalem 26 – 34 D. Protection of the Family, Protection of the Child (Art.23, 24, 2; 12, 14, 17, 24, 26) Question 25: Measures taken by the State party to revoke the Citizenship and 35 – 45 Entry Into Israel Law; right to marriage E.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Palestinian - Israeli Meetings in the Occupied Territories
    Lecture Notes on Palestinian - Israeli Meetings In The Occupied Territories (1967 - 1987) Dr. Mahdi F. Abdul Hadi PASSIA Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs PASSIA is an independent, non-profit Palestinian institution, unaffiliated with any government, political party, or organization, which undertakes studies and research on the Question of Palestine and its relationship to international affairs. PASSIA encourages the publication of various research studies which reflects the plurality of perspectives and methodology within a context of academic freedom. This paper represents the views of its author and does not necessarily indicate the judgement or opinions of PASSIA. Dr. Mahdi Abdul Hadi, a Palestinian Academic in Jerusalem, presented this lecture on June 30, 1987 at PASSIA. PASSIA © Copyright First Edition - June 1987 Second Edition - June 1988 Third Edition - February 1991 PASSIA Publication Tel: 972-2-6264426 / 6286566 ● Fax: 972-2-6282819 E-mail:[email protected] Website: http: //www.passia.org P.O.Box 19545, Jerusalem The Palestinian-Israeli meetings from June 1967 to June 1987 have been discussed in the Israeli news media, meetings that have been held in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza and in Tel-Aviv and the settlements of the Arab Triangle, are not a new development or, for that matter, a political secret. These meetings have been taking place throughout all the years of Israeli occupation. True, they have sometimes been infrequent and cool, but they have continued unabated, and have affected the issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict both positively and negatively. The meetings began immediately after the June War of 1967 and were initiated mainly by Israelis.
    [Show full text]
  • China's Position on the Palestine-Israel Issue
    China’s Position on the Palestine-Israel Issue: A Historical Perspective Abstract The Question of Palestine is the core of Middle East issues and the one of the root factors of peace in the Middle East. From the historical perspective, China’s position on this issue has always been clear, consistent and convergent with the international community, whi- ch is supporting the Palestinian just cause. But there are also some twists and turns between China on the one hand and Palestine and Israel on the other hand. It can be divided into the following periods: Friendly histori- cal relations between China and the Jewish nation; Pro- Arab and Anti-Israel (1949-1979); Keep Balance betwe- en Arab and Israel (1979-2013); Active Participation of Palestine-Israel Issue under Belt & Road Initiative. Although China’s position and recommendations on the Palestine-Israel issue are more easily accepted by both sides, the current Chinese Middle East policy is still trapped in the predicament of “morality” and “interest”. On the one hand, China has to support Arab countries’ just cause, but it is impossible to give up its friendly re- lations with Israel on the other hand. The Belt & Road Initiative will provide a great opportunity for China to actively engage in the hot issues in the Middle East. Keywords: Palestine-Israel Issue; China; BRI; Mid- dle East Yang Chen Dr. Tarih Bölümü Öğretim Üyesi, Türkçe Çalışmaları Merkezi Direktörü, Şangay Üniversitesi. Şangay, Çin. 4 Çin’in Filistin-İsrail Meselesine Bakışı: Tarihsel Perspektif Öz Filistin Sorunu, Ortadoğu meselelerinin özü ve Ortadoğu’da barışın ana vesilelerinden biridir.
    [Show full text]
  • Purpose-Driven Boundary Maintenance in Palestine, 1967-2016
    Cooperating with the Enemy: Purpose-Driven Boundary Maintenance in Palestine, 1967-2016 by Daniel Nerenberg B.A. in and Middle East Studies, May 2004, McGill University M.A. in Political Science, May 2006, McGill University A Dissertation submitted to The Faculty of The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 31, 2016 Dissertation directed by Nathan Brown Professor of Political Science and International Affairs The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University certifies that Daniel Nerenberg has passed the Final Examination for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy as of July 22, 2016. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation. Cooperating with the Enemy: Purpose-Driven Boundary Maintenance in Palestine, 1967-2016 Daniel Nerenberg Dissertation Research Committee: Nathan Brown, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, Dissertation Director Marc Lynch, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, Committee Member Henry Hale, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, Committee Member ii © Copyright 2016 by Daniel Nerenberg All rights reserved iii Acknowledgements After seven years of researching and writing, and a dozen prior to that getting to know the case, the list of good people who have influenced the process and outcome of this dissertation is too long to fit this small space. But some cannot go unmentioned. Ronit Avni, for starting me on this path, sparking my interest with her compassionate but incisive voice on movement building and the struggle for rights in Palestine and Israel.
    [Show full text]